2013 ORS § 308.510¹

Real and personal property classified for ORS 308.505 to 308.665

(1) All land of any railroad, logging road, electric rail or railroad switching and terminal company, including land used or held and claimed exclusively as right of way, with all the tracks and substructures and superstructures that support the right of way, together with all buildings or other structures or improvements, without separating the land and improvements, is real property. Vehicles and any other property is personal property.

(2) All land of any company is real property. Except as provided in subsection (1) of this section, all buildings, structures, improvements of any kind or fixtures of a permanent character of any kind that are located on land that is owned or used by a company is real property. All other property owned or used by a company is personal property.

(3)(a) Except as provided in ORS 308.517 (To whom property assessed) (2) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, the renting, leasing, chartering or otherwise assigning of property exclusively for the use or benefit of another does not constitute a use by the lessor.

(b) A lessor shall be deemed the user of property rented, leased or otherwise furnished by the lessor to the employees of the lessor as an incident of employment.

(c) A rail transportation company shall be deemed the user of property located within the rail transportation companys station ground reservations or rights of way, notwithstanding that the property may be leased, rented or otherwise assigned by the rail transportation company for the use or benefit of another.

Where uncompleted plans and specifica­tions for nuclear and coal-fired generating plants of public utility were in ownership and control of out-of-state engineering firm preparing them, though plaintiff had unliquidated claim for damages if plans were not delivered, the claim did not have situs in state and was not used for plaintiffs business as of assess­ment date. Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 33 (1977)

A prop­erty connec­tion between corpora­tions is shown by the right of one company to control the opera­tions of the other company, and where Southern Pacific exerted executive control of Cottonbelts marketing, financing, manage­ment, opera­tions and labor, Southern Pacific was the owner of Cottonbelt for purposes of these sec­tions. Southern Pacific Trans. Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 295 Or 47, 664 P2d 401 (1983)

Plaintiffs use of wa­ter power constituted use of prop­erty subject to taxa­tion and must be added to value of plaintiffs hydroelectric facility. Joseph Hydro Associates v. Dept. of Rev., 11 OTR 49 (1988)

To be user of prop­erty taxpayer must have some de­gree of control, but not necessarily absolute control, over prop­erty at issue. Pacificorp Power Marketing v. Dept. of Revenue, 340 Or 204, 131 P3d 725 (2006)

Notes of Decisions

The wa­ter system in a planned unit develop­ment was properly assessed by the Depart­ment of Revenue as having value for which taxes should have been assessed. Brooks Resources v. Dept. of Rev., 276 Or 1177, 538 P2d 312 (1976)

In valuing a railroad, the weight to be given each approach customarily used (cost, stock and debt, and income) and the varia­tion among appraisers in the minutiae of their methods, if in dispute, are left to the court to consider. Burlington Northern v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 19 (1979), as modified by 291 Or 729, 635 P2d 347 (1981)

Land infested with tansy ragwort and therefore not used to obtain a profit was properly disqualified for special assess­ment at true cash value for farm use. Shepherd v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 122 (1979)

While it is allowable to use only one approach in valuing prop­erty, whether in any given assess­ment one approach should be used exclusive of the others or is preferable to an­oth­er or to combina­tion of approaches is ques­tion of fact to be determined by the court. Pacific Power and Light Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 529, 596 P2d 912 (1979)

Law Review Cita­tions

26 WLR 714 (1990)

Chapter 308

Notes of Decisions

Programs administered by Depart­ment of Revenue that allow preferential assess­ment for farm and forestland are not programs affecting land use and are not subject to require­ment of statewide goal and local comprehensive plan compliance under ORS 197.180 (State agency planning responsibilities). Springer v. LCDC, 111 Or App 262, 826 P2d 54 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each
listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals
relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.